Hampstead Pond - Brave woman speaks

[WandaWomblesaurus]

https://twitter.com/roseveniceallan/status/1764345843178512414?s=48

<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20240302074256/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13146349/How-tranquil-oasis-female-swimmers-line-culture-wars-Bitter-row-trans-women-allowed-bathe-historic-single-sex-pond-comes-ferocious-head.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://web.archive.org/web/20240302074256/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13146349/How-tranquil-oasis-female-swimmers-line-culture-wars-Bitter-row-trans-women-allowed-bathe-historic-single-sex-pond-comes-ferocious-head.html

Venice Allan

I take advice from feminists around the world. Some are white, some are brown, some are black. From lots of very different places. The one thing they have in common, is that they are real feminist women, centring women and girls, unlike the many cynical pretenders of both sexes.

And would you give money to an organisation which opposes VAWG if they included trans women amongst the people they support?

What is quite remarkable is the way in which any contemporary political movement ( be that women's rights/trans rights/climate change) feels it is immediately privileged if its tags on to an anti-racist/white privilege soap box.

It depends on many things. I wouldn't rule it out.

I've supported other mixed sex charities.

I'd prefer to give my money to an organsisation which centres women and girls - certainly if women and girls is my main concern. Let those more concerned with trans rights donate to a charity which centres males who identify as women.

Turning the question round to @DadJoke would you offer financial support to a charity set up for biological women only, or does TRA politics come first?

Can you give examples of other sub sets of women? Apart from men who call themselves trans?

Certainly. IF they provided, as part of those services, female only provision for women who cannot access mixed sex provision. I am all for accessible, equal facilities for everyone.

If however the price of receiving women's services is a forced pretence that some men are women, and mixed sex services in the fiction that they are single sex? Then no. I would not help fund prejudiced, exclusionary services being made punitive and inaccessible to women in order to support a political position that centres men.

It’s a factor, but it’s theoretical.

Given the choice of a charity which is trans-inclusive and one which is not, I’d chose the trans-inclusive one. Likewise, I’d rather give money to secular aid charities than religious ones. It’s not been an issue because the vast majority of charities set up in aid of women are trans-inclusive, and none that I have considered have turned out trans-exclusive.

In the unlikely event there was a cause which I really supported where there was no option but to donate to a trans-exclusive one, I would donate.

So, you would pick another charity which supports your goals better. Me, too. You would, for example, refuse to donate to almost any rape crisis centre except Beira’s Place, I would do the opposite.

Which charity which wants to end VAWG meets your criteria?

You provided a link to an opinion piece by an employment solicitor and the TRA comic barrister RMW. Seriously? The rest of your post is simple bollocks. Why do you think that the EHRC produced this non-interim guidance? Maybe it was raining and the boys and girls at EHRC couldn't go outside to play so they wrote it to pass the time.

Did you actually read my post or just not understand it?

Or are you saying that you would exclusively support services that have a policy of excluding and denying help to women who cannot access mixed sex provision to punish them for their sins?

@JanesLittleGirl

You provided a link to an opinion piece by an employment solicitor and the TRA comic barrister RMW. Seriously? The rest of your post is simple bollocks. Why do you think that the EHRC produced this non-interim guidance? Maybe it was raining and the boys and girls at EHRC couldn't go outside to play so they wrote it to pass the time.

Are you seriously asking why the EHRC produce guidance? I mean, if you can't figure that out, you're a few eggs short of a dozen. They are doing their job.

It makes zero difference to the fact that statutory guidance trumps non-statutory guidance. As to why the non-statutory guidance is so flawed, I have no idea.

Which of these arguments are you unable to follow? That where the statutory COP and the non-statutory one conflict you follow the statutory one? That the statutory one has weight in law and the other doesn't?

To become statutory, the code has to be put before parliament. It then has to pass both houses. That's not going to happen with this non-statutory guidance.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/3/section/14

I'm sure JKR is absolutely quaking in her boots that Beira's Place is dependant on funding from TRA's and captured institutions....

.....oh, wait......

This makes interesting reading. If Kenwood Ponds has ignored email/s, or failed to justify properly their decision, then they will be in breach of legislation. I hope that one of the aggrieved women picks up on this.

• Probably best to consult a solicitor!

4 - there is no requirement to show that a majority of service users would benefit from the exercise of an exemption to exclude people with the PC of GR. A single letter or email from a woman who believes that including men with the PC of GR would remove her dignity or privacy or from a single Muslim or Orthodox Jewish woman who states that the presence of a biological man prevents her from accessing the service is enough for the provider to review their policy.

5 - any single sex provider who fails to justify their policy of allowing people with the PC of GR to use the facilities that they choose when challenged by a user from 4 will probably be acting unlawfully.

Good question.

Spanish women.
Japanese women.
Kazakh women.

@DadJoke

Are you seriously asking why the EHRC produce guidance? I mean, if you can't figure that out, you're a few eggs short of a dozen. They are doing their job.

My reference to the boys and girls at the EHRC not being able to play outside didn't suggest to you that I might be being sarcastic?

It makes zero difference to the fact that statutory guidance trumps non-statutory guidance. As to why the non-statutory guidance is so flawed, I have no idea.

I have already made clear that non-statutory guidance can be completely ignored if it is in conflict with the statutory Code of Practice. It is your opinion, along with that of RMW and Katie Glendinning that the guidance is flawed. Others disagree.

Which of these arguments are you unable to follow? That where the statutory COP and the non-statutory one conflict you follow the statutory one? That the statutory one has weight in law and the other doesn't?

I clearly agree with your first sentence. The second one is wrong. Otherwise TRAs wouldn't be running around screaming their heads off over the non-statutory guidance for schools.

To become statutory, the code has to be put before parliament. It then has to pass both houses. That's not going to happen with this non-statutory guidance.

It isn't a code. It is guidance. HTH

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/3/section/14

Yes, we all know the process for a statutory code of practice. Why is it relevant?

Why do you think that the EHRC produced this non-interim guidance? Maybe it was raining and the boys and girls at EHRC couldn't go outside to play so they wrote it to pass the time.

Dadjoke

For the purpose of argument please give an example of a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim which excludes all male people, including biologically male trans people who want access, from a single sex space for women.

You say you believe there are such limited examples, what are they? There are lots of examples of single sex spaces given in the notes to the Equality Act if you need ideas.

BTW, I love RMW's quote from the Code of Practice:

“Service providers should be aware that where a transsexual person is visually and for all practical purposes indistinguishable from a non-transsexual person of that gender, they should normally be treated according to their acquired gender, unless there are strong reasons to the contrary.”

You would have to be a blind man on a flying horse to regard RMW as visually and for all practical purposes indistinguishable from a non-transsexual person of that gender.

Exactly. Let's not pretend that that doesn't apply to all but a tiny minority. And misguided though it was, it was clearly intended for "stealth", not for males to perform dominance displays in women's spaces.

I'd ask who is going to make the decision that this male person completely 'passes' - I loathe that term. But I know the answer.

It will be the male person themselves. Like Alex, with his beard, 'expanding the bandwidth of womanhood'.

Ffs, women have more important things in their lives and in their most vulnerable moments than dealing with the many, many, many issues of these men.

I struggled to make sense of RMW's statement because I understood ...where a transsexual person is visually and for all practical purposes indistinguishable from a non-transsexual person of that gender... to mean that if a transwman is visually and for all practical purposes indistinguishable from a non-transsexual man, they should be treated as men. Because, apart from clothes, hair, makeup etc, that is the case - males look male. Not necessarily masculine, but certainly male.

But then very little RMW says makes sense.